Topics: R. 36 RoP
-
LD Düsseldorf, April 28, 2026, procedural order, UPC_CFI_869/2025
Admissibility of submissions : The admissibility of the documents and arguments submitted is a question of fact. Whether the defendant’s submissions in its rejoinder regarding the motion to amend are relevant to the decision in the present case, and whether they were filed late requires a thorough analysis. Such an assessment can only be made…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, March 9, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_758/2024, UPC_CFI_259/2025
Requests for further written pleadings under R. 36 RoP are assessed through a two-pronged balancing test weighing the party’s reasons against the impact on proceedings and delay risk.: The Court must take into account the reasons put forward by the requesting party as to why further pleadings are necessary. The Court must also weigh the…
4 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
Court of Appeal, February 27, 2026, request for further exchanges of written pleadings, UPC_CoA_884/2025
Requests, facts and evidence from first instance automatically form part of appeal proceedings (R. 222.1 and R. 222.2 RoP): The appellant argued it needed an additional round of written pleadings to respond to six auxiliary requests raised by the respondent in its Statement of Response. The judge-rapporteur rejected this application, finding no justification for reopening…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, March 4, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_678/2025
The written procedure on appeal is limited; there is no automatic right to reply to the Statement of Response (Part 4 RoP, R. 237, R. 238 RoP): Under Part 4 of the Rules of Procedure, the appellant may file a Statement of Grounds of Appeal and the respondent a Statement of Response. No further written…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, February 4, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_583/2025
An order to produce evidence under Art. 59 UPCA and R. 190 RoP requires the claimant to present reasonably available and plausible evidence supporting its infringement claim.: The claimant must specify evidence within the defendant’s control. The Court’s order is subject to safeguards for confidential information and the right against self-incrimination (Art. 59(1) UPCA). The…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, January 13, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_850/2026
Admissibility of late submissions deferred post-hearing; panel to decide: The decision on rejecting the claimant’s allegedly late FRAND submissions, and final admission of the defendant’s reply, is deferred to the panel after the oral hearing. No extension of written procedure; narrow provisional reply allowed (Rule 36 RoP): The court closed the written phase and refused…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, September 12, 2025, procedural order on further exchanges of written pleadings, UPC_CFI_733/2024
Strict requirement for R. 36 RoP application for written submissions beyond those foreseen in the Rules: The correct means to introduce written pleadings outside the regime provided for in the Rules of Procedure is an application pursuant to R. 36 RoP. Such an application must be made prior to the date on which the judge-rapporteur…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, August 21, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CoA_764/2024
No further written submissions after the oral hearing: Pursuant to R. 36 RoP, the judge-rapporteur may, upon a reasoned request by a party submitted before the closure of the written procedure, allow the exchange of further written submissions. After this point, there is no basis for submitting additional written submissions, particularly not without prior approval…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, August 27, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CFI_521/2024
Rejection of submission: The court may, at its discretion, disregard not only unsolicited written submissions in addition to the regular written pleadings provided for in the RoP, but also the content of regular written pleadings that goes beyond the admissible content provided for in the RoP. This applies not only to new arguments or facts,…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, April 1, 2025, Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_132/2024
UPC sets strict limitations on requests for filing further briefs: The UPC emphasizes procedural efficiency and limits deviations from the standard briefing schedule outlined in Rule 12 RoP. Requests for further briefs must be explicitly justified and supported by specific evidence, outlining the necessity for exceeding the standard two mandatory and two optional briefs. Request…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxembourg, March 24, 2025, procedural order UPC_CoA_835/2024
Submissions after the conclusion of written proceedings are not admissible: Additional grounds of appeal that are not raised within the time limit for the statement of grounds of appeal provided for in R. 224.2 RoP are inadmissible, R. 233.3 RoP A further exchange of written pleadings may be permitted at the reasoned request of a…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, March 04, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_115/2024, UPC_CFI_377/2024
Denial of additional written submissions (R. 36 RoP): The judge-rapporteur can permit additional submissions only if a justified request is made before the conclusion of the written procedure. The court denied both parties’ requests for additional written submissions due to non-compliance with procedural rules. Timing and justification of requests (R. 36 RoP) : The claimant’s…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, February 5, 2025, order concerning further exchanges of written pleadings (R. 36 RoP), UPC_CFI_163/2024
Three sucessive stages of the written procedure in infringement actions: The Rules of Procedure devide the written procedure into several successive stages: Stage 1: Pleadings relating to the infringement claim comprising a set of 4 statements Stage 2: Pleadings relating to the validity of the patent-in-suit in the event of a counterclaim for revocation Stage…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, December 11, 2024, Decision on the merits, UPC_CFI_395/2023
Headnote 1: Order pursuant to R. 36 RoP does not authorize to raise new grounds; UPC procedure is front-loaded system.: The order pursuant to Rule 36 RoP issued by the judge-rapporteur relates to adding some arguments to the debate related to some specific terms regarding claim interpretation, but it did not authorise the defendant to raise a new…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, October 30, 2024, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_355/2023
R. 36 RoP: Filing of Pleadings Beyond Time Limits Specified in RoP Possible: The fact that the claimant has only one opportunity to submit written observations on the right of prior use is a consequence of the Rules of procedure and the time limits laid down therein. However, in order to give the claimant the…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, August 21, 2024, order on an application pursuant to R. 9.1 RoP, UPC_CoA_469/2024
R.9.1 RoP cannot be interpreted as giving the parties the right to file motions on their own initiative.: According to R. 9.1 RoP, the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, of its own motion or on a reasoned request by a party, make a procedural order such as to order a party to…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, August 21, 2024, order on application pursuant to R. 9.1 RoP and summons of the parties to the oral hearing, UPC_CoA_354/2024
An application under R.36 RoP can only be made before the closure of the interim procedure, and further pleadings may only be filed after an application under R. 36 RoP has been made: For the appeal procedure, R.239.2 RoP conclusively determines when the written procedure is completed. As soon as the judge-rapporteur considers the appeal…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.